The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The remedy already offered by the Council is enough to address the injustice caused. The Council has refunded the money paid to the bailiff after a fine was wrongly issued. The Council had sent letters advising of the right to appeal the fine, which would have prevented the bailiffs visiting, so no additional remedy is proposed.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains that he was caused stress and anxiety when bailiffs called at his address after a fine for driving in a bus lane was wrongly issued.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I read the papers put in by Mr X.
I considered the documents provided by the Council about the complaint.
Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Bailiffs visited Mr X’s address to recover a fine for driving in a bus lane. Mr X paid the bailiff. Mr X then complained to the Council as he had never driven his car in that area.
The Council responded to his complaint to say there had been an error in its system that recognises car numberplates. The Council refunded the money Mr X paid to the bailiffs.
Mr X has complained to the Ombudsman, as he wants compensation for his stress and anxiety.
The Council has explained that it and the bailiffs sent several letters to Mr X about the fine. These would have included details of how to appeal the fine. I know that Mr X received these documents, as I have seen the bailiffs bodycam footage which records Mr X telling the bailiff how he thought they were a scam.
I do not consider that a further remedy is appropriate in this case. If Mr X had responded to the letters, the bailiffs would not have visited. The Council has refunded the money and remedied the error that occurred in its systems. However, as Mr X did not challenge the fine when he was first told by letter there was no fault in the Council in referring the matter to the bailiffs to collect the debt.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is upheld. There was fault by the Council but it has offered an appropriate remedy for injustice before the complaint was sent to the Ombudsman.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman